Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm having trouble understanding why it's a problem for an overwhelming lily-white institution like this college to recruit one minority person. Especially since they are publicly supported and given tax exempt status.
Read these links, and understand what has happened in South Africa over the last 20 years. This is being done to "redress a grave historical injustice". Sound familiar? For those white people so foolish to think "it can't happen here": it can, it is, and it will. This is your future, and that of your children, and your grandchildren. You need to make your decision and choose your side now.
Read these links, and understand what has happened in South Africa over the last 20 years. This is being done to "redress a grave historical injustice". Sound familiar? For those white people so foolish to think "it can't happen here": it can, it is, and it will. This is your future, and that of your children, and your grandchildren. You need to make your decision and choose your side now.
I'm having trouble understanding why it's a problem for an overwhelming lily-white institution like this college to recruit one minority person. Especially since they are publicly supported and given tax exempt status.
Well the problem is they are using a policy of racial exclusion to fight racial exclusion. Now, ok fine maybe people think that is a valid way to go about doing it. A racially explicit policy to rectify racial inequality is obviously different in intent than a racially explicit policy to reinforce racial inequality.
But, lets not pretend that reasonable can't disagree on this or that this is obviously the correct way to go about increasing diversity. Particularly when the university could have just hired a minority without making it an explicit requirement.
Well the problem is they are using a policy of racial exclusion to fight racial exclusion. Now, ok fine maybe people think that is a valid way to go about doing it. A racially explicit policy to rectify racial inequality is obviously different in intent than a racially explicit policy to reinforce racial inequality.
But, lets not pretend that reasonable can't disagree on this or that this is obviously the correct way to go about increasing diversity. Particularly when the university could have just hired a minority without making it an explicit requirement.
What they're saying, is that in order to best serve a racially-diverse student body, they need to have racially-diverse administrators that handle student affairs. IOW, being a representative of a racial minority is a legit qualifying factor for the advertised position, among other required qualifications. It's not a move to "fight racial exclusion via racial exclusion". It's a move to better address issues that come up for a segment of the student body.
What they're saying, is that in order to best serve a racially-diverse student body, they need to have racially-diverse administrators that handle student affairs. IOW, being a representative of a racial minority is a legit qualifying factor for the advertised position, among other required qualifications. It's not a move to "fight racial exclusion via racial exclusion". It's a move to better address issues that come up for a segment of the student body.
Now I live in my own little liberal bubble and have a difficult time seeing things from conservative perspectives. But, even I can see why many people would say this is hypocritical.
At the end of the day, this isn't a requirement that the candidate have specific skills relating to working with diverse populations or a targeted effort to get a diverse candidate pool. This is an explicit requirement that the person can not be of a particular race. That is by definition treating people different (i.e. discriminating) on the basis of race.
Now I get the broader context of having a staff that reflects the student population, etc. I get why many think it make sense to do this way. I understand the difference between positive and negative discrimination. I get what the school is trying to do here. But, lets at least acknowledge why a literal reading of this action can be called discrimination on the basis of race.
As I previously stated, I don't get why the school has come out with this explicit racial requirement. All they are doing is creating a conflict (and potential legal issues) where they don't need one. If they want more diversity on this staff, they could just hire a PoC without coming right out and stating it. They would get the same result without creating an unneeded conflict.
It's amazing and sick and twisted to me that the narrative elites and sinister globalists started with - the lie, which as Ted Kennedy stated in 1965 "would not upset the balance of this country - that America would not be flooded with a million people annually from the poorest parts of Africa, Asia and elsewhere" has now turned into "we don't have enough diversity" or "whites need not apply"... in all walks of life in America.
And you people wonder why there are conspiracy theorists like me out there and we're only growing by the day in America (oh, and Canada)?
I keep forgetting this is happening in progressive Canada.
Just to keep the topic..on topic...here is Chuck Schumer indicating where we're headed, like it or not...
It's amazing and sick and twisted to me that the narrative elites and sinister globalists started with - the lie, which as Ted Kennedy stated in 1965 "would not upset the balance of this country - that America would not be flooded with a million people annually from the poorest parts of Africa, Asia and elsewhere" has now turned into "we don't have enough diversity" or "whites need not apply"... in all walks of life in America.
And you people wonder why there are conspiracy theorists like me out there and we're only growing by the day in America (oh, and Canada)?
...
That first sentence is the definition of hyperbole.
But I have never wondered why there are conspiracy thinkers out there. The few I have known are kinda nuts and on meds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
